“The real world is much smaller than the world of imagination”Ecce Homo – Friedrich Nietzsche

Fantasy today is becoming more and more popular, fighting the resistance it had had decades ago. Today we have thousands of movies and millions of books coming out. This poses the question though: Why even read Fantasy as a genre? Specially today, when the “serious” people have embraced the banner of the pragmatic and scientific being, we still adhere so much to an apparently “useless” form of literature and entertainment, even though it is more and more popular. Well, to this question I will have to return to one of the first theorists that sat down to reflect on the issue in the 20th century, that is, J.R.R. Tolkien.

But before I start with the quotations, I’d like first to invite you to rethink the word “use”, since today it is linked strongly with the idea of a personal profit and (almost) a professional growth. Today many business minded people just can’t see the allure towards this form of escapist literature, since it does not provide an immediate (monetary) benefit. The “use” of something is thus what evaluates if something is even worth pursuing and/or keeping, which has sadly devolved to a situation in which the distraction has become less engaging and more generic. Even today, when our society has defended a more bleak worldview of “correctness”, imagination and fantasy have flourished against the forces that ask us to reason. But the old professor of Oxford once said, in his famous essay On Fairy-Stories:

“Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy it will make.”

Tolkien defines Fantasy as a normal human feature that has to be nourished to make a perceptive person. This is based on the ground of the three features that the genre has in itself: Recovery, Escape and Consolation. To make the explanation short, each element that should be in a good faerie-story must permit the reader (gamer or watcher) to observe reality with other eyes while resting from the real world and finding pleasure and joy in an ending that satisfies.

Thus escaping into a fantasy realm is in itself not a bad thing, but good and helpful, since it will change our point of view and let us rest of this reality that, at times, seems chaotic and senseless. It is true we can not really leave the real world, but changing your perception on a problem after a moment of rest always will help put things into perspective.

The “use” of Fantasy lies not within the profit we make but the inner healing and the change of perspective. Also, since it is being part of our nature, we always feel drawn to it no matter how some try to drown that feeling of attraction towards the mysterious. Since the beginning we have reveled in our imagination, giving explanations to our surroundings through myth.

Today most of it is reflected through our fascination not only of the fantastic, but also of the beyond and even the horror. Thus, we do not only indulge a whim, but a necessity that drives us to see the magical in our world. In some form or another, no matter how scientific minded we are, we always find interest in the possibilities the world could offer, no matter how exaggerated we may think it is.

The ‘need’ to take this timeout is rarely overcome, and even those who claim they have, enjoy a movie or two around these topics. Claiming we don’t have a use is just a way to express disinterest in a particular theme, which doesn’t mean the person does not need his share of escapism. Fantasy just does it in its own way.

As people today can be Football fans or Hemingway enthusiasts, those who follow the genre of the faerie are passionate about something that permits us lay back for a moment and observe things with other eyes. The downside of our taste, though, is that it has gone trough a depreciation since, at least, the 19th century. Even Tolkien had to refute the fact that the art of creating a good faerie story was, in his time, considered to be exclusively for children, since their stories seemed vain and simplistic.

But specially today, with the growth of the genre and the different media it touches, I think it is something we can’t ignore anymore. It has become more serious and more “grown up”. If not, then why would a series of books, turned into a TV show, become so popular and be able to contain mature topics such as war, poverty, famine, prostitution and other topics?

“Fiction is fiction.”, the introduction to a Quenya dictionary would state, ” But it is driven up to a limit where it takes the opaque, resisting form of a reality.”

One thing is for sure: today’s Fantasy is different from the one in Tolkien’s time, but we owe it not only to his work, but to his adamant defence that we shall enjoy the stories for what they are. The genre is a broad world that makes us imagine and re-imagine. I definitely think that reading, playing and enjoying it is important to us, if only to find solace and boosting our wills and perspectives. It does not need a “use”, it is just natural and it is part of us.

It’s long now since the release of the second Hobbit movie, and most of the heated discussions have subsided. Especially in the case of such a movie, controversy is high. Many things can be said about it: the quantity of action scenes, the cuts and additions to the source material, Bard, Smaug and the chase scene. So much can be said, so much can be criticized.

In this case, I want to concentrate on a topic that many people tend to criticize a lot. Now, before I start the discussion, I strongly recommend to read a previous post of mine, back when I started the movie comparisons with the book. There I present some important points on making adaptions which I will not repeat, but are crucial to follow the discussion.

Second, I would like to recap a term coined by the Tolkien Professor (Corey Olsen) with which I wholeheartedly agree and which should, in my humble opinion, become part of any book adaptation, which is “Critfic”. Critic fiction is the situation in which any viewer of such an adaptation interprets changes made to the source material, imposing his view on how the new material was created. This oftentimes leads to simplistic interpretations on what happened “behind the scenes”, which hampers the analysis of any work of art based on an assumption, be it right or wrong. In other words, the criticism oftentimes becomes the foreground to the discrediting (sometimes the contrary) of a movie or other media, leading to an “un”-meaningful discussion on the development of the story.

Most of us are guilty of such critfic. Sometimes we do not end up liking a piece of work just because the author “rushed” the story or because the director wanted to appeal to a target audience. This may be true, but oftentimes it helps not the interpretation of a work of art or just gives us some superficial understanding that makes us forget the connection of elements in a story.

The basic assumption with which I will work is that most works of fiction, be it a video game, a book or a movie, are usually seen by the creators as legitimately well done (with a few chinks, of course, no one is perfect) and most of the creations of the criticized work of fiction goes beyond the typical “this is just a quick cash in”. In other words, even if flawed or influenced by other forces, most content creators don’t make what they do just for the money, but because of the legitimate wish to write a meaningful or entertaining story.

This is a very common thing that comes up when one talks about The Hobbit, and especially the somewhat uncommon relationship of Kili and Tauriel. Criticism about this one is that Peter Jackson and team only included the elf-maid to make women happy, especially feminists. Also, the “love scene” between her and the dwarf exists only to fill the quota of a typical Hollywood movie – action & an immediate relationship between male and female-.

But in this case I see it totally different. In an action-packed movie, the relationship between Kili and Tauriel is a welcome change of pace to me. If I found something a bit lacking, then it was the few chances of a calm character development moment. Most of the characters just jump around, attack and kill, making the movie a very exciting and sometimes suspenseful experience. But the inclusion of new characters needed also a time for them to be presented and grow. Unlike the children of Bard, I felt Tauriel much more complete, much more developed.

Even though she might have been created for this film specifically, she was also much more tolkinian by hearth. The relationship with the prisoner does reflect an interesting similitude with Beren and Luthien, never reaching the full circle of love like in the original story. It also reflects the wishes and dreams of two races, separated by a hatred. Again, this goes back to the original Lay of Luthien, where King Thingol can not deem the humans as something nearly equal as the elves are, thus sneers on the second child of Ilúvatar. Yes, the trope of the strong, independent woman is still there, such as the one I discussed on my article on Arwen, but this time it was not done by sacrificing a woman.

A second consideration is maybe the idea that Jackson and team have included the lady elf as a way to appeal to feminine audiences, especially those who liked heroic women. Here I have to disagree a bit. Although the option is viable, the character was integrated correctly into the story. She is not just that two dimensional character who is a badass and kills every orc for some unknown reason, but also an emotional being who finds connection with the dwarf, who wants to leave a cave to explore, not knowing that she will get what she wished for.

If we compare this to the book, I could understand greatly the argument. She is definitely not part of the story. There is no dwarf/elf romance going on, and many will take this as an unnecessary addition. But then again, we have to realize the difference between the two mediums. The Hobbit, as a book, was originally a story devised for children and, at the same time and without the author’s knowledge, the beginning of a story that, once published decades later, would capture the imagination of people. The sequel was cold and gritty, somewhat dark, aside form the heroic moments. In short, we have a world growing.

The movie, on the other hand, has gone through a reverse process. It began technically with the sequel, and once the film makers had to make the prequel, they found out that this ambiance did not fit the second movie. Not only viewer expectations had to be filled, but also complexities and story elements to make the adaptation more mature and thus in the same tone as the original trilogy. Keeping the original cast may have been a detriment. The new characters added, especially Tauriel reflect that need. She was not just put in the world, but integrated, and no way better than creating the conflict by sharing a reflection moment with one of the prisoners.

I think that gives the movie a great credit, even though I might not have liked the rest of the actions scenes. But it goes to show that new things can be brought on the table by just flexing the world a bit. The “love” that arises between Kili and Tauriel is not out of place, it does follow some mythological resonances. It also deepens the story beyond the “I am just crossing the forest”, giving more motivations to the movie.

Plus, there remains to be seen what this conflict will do in the third installment.

I love The Legend of Zelda. I may not have played each one of its iterations, I may not have completed them all 100%. But every time I have a second on my busy life, I just play them. I enjoy the mechanics, the bosses and sometimes even the silly stories. Heck, I even bought a 2DS just to play the most recent title, A Link Between Worlds.

How has it fared for me? In my opinion it was fantastic. In some friends’ opinion it was just a “meh”. But here I am a bit more biased, not because of my fandom, since my friends are fans too, but due to my attention to the story. Because the designers, inadvertently or not, have included an interesting facet into the game mechanics.

I once complained about the fact that in many sequels, the super powered player by some unexplained chance had become dwarfed, losing all the items he had at disposition, as well as power-ups and other neat stuff. In TLoZ this was often avoided by creating so called “sequels” where the hero was a reborn form of some ancestor. Thus a loophole was averted effectively. Not a big one, but a nitpick nonetheless.

When I heard that LBW was a sequel to probably the best Zelda ever, I was a bit dubious about how it would work out. But the world was familiar, but different, which I took much enjoyment in.

There was the issue of the items, which were technically all at disposition since the beginning of the game. Many found that a bit off putting, but for me it was a great stroke of genius. It was not the game mechanic that fascinated me here, but the “meta-history” behind this concept.

But what is meta history? Unlike meta story, which is technically a secondary story that runs in the background of a game to set the tone and the mood of the general game, meta-history refers to the history that runs from one sequel to another, as in how the change across the years/decades/centuries run by in the fictional game world or even the history that affects how we can relate to the game/work of fiction. There are many examples of this in fiction.

Let’s take, for example Tolkien’s books to explain the concept. The Hobbit as we know it today is not the original version. The 1937 edition told the chapter of “Riddles in the Dark” totally different: Gollum offered the Ring as a gift and, upon discovering that Bilbo already had it, offered him to guide him out of the mountain. When the author took the time to make the sequel, he had to create link to the Lord of the Rings. He decided to make the Ring that link and rewrote the story to match, more or less, the moods.

How did he excuse this change? He simply determined that the first version was old corrupted Bilbo’s point of view. Frodo wrote the second, more “correct”, version after the events of Lord of the Rings. That Red Book was taken to Gondor, while Bilbo’s Red Book stayed safely in Rivendell. In other words, there were two versions in different libraries, and all Tolkien did was translate those books, discovering two points of view on the same story, as it happens with many historic events. Thus we have now two editions, the old one being Bilbo’s book and the new one being Frodo’s.

This is a prime example of meta-history. When there was something that contradicted in the editions of the books, instead of accepting it as a mistake, the author invented a historical reason within the framework of his fictitious world for the apparent mistake, integrating them thus in a much more creative evolution of the books and giving them a fake history.

How does the new Zelda accomplish this? The Hyrule we play at in LBW is the same as the one in Link to the Past. This means that the previous Link, who lived centuries ago, had already looted the dungeons, thus rendering them empty of legendary artifacts. The fact that Ravio has all the items in his possession could thus mean (this is purely conjectural) that he bought them all from collectors or found them in ancient graves and other places outside the dungeons. Granted, some objects, like the blue suit, are still in dungeons, but they are in another dimension, which does not contradict the idea of the emptied dungeons.

In other words, there is a historic reason for the new mechanic. I don’t know if the designers at Nintendo did it on purpose, but the mere idea that the treasure was now obtainable without the need to enter a dungeon was incredible. I liked the game because of this. Now all I had to do was to rent/buy the items from a greedy salesman and I felt there had been really a previous Link who had taken out all treasures and inherited (or maybe even sold) them to other people.

This is a minor detail in the grand total of a great game, but definitely one that gives more life to the fictional world provided. This again shifted the whole idea on how you approach dungeons, making thus Dark Hyrule even more open ended, since we did not need to scavenge for the treasure anymore.

Now that specific Hyrule had an history, and now the sequel felt even more like one. It is just that little detail, the meta-historic detail, that gives us a deeper world to explore and imagine – had this particular thing been on purpose or not.

Today’s topic is about movies. To be exact, a question I asked myself after analyzing the ever so popular Lord of the Rings movies. Before entering this discussion let me just remind me the basic idea of this post.

Movies are a visual medium, in other words, the moving pictures have a different perspective compared to a novel. This means that the presenting of a story will always differ if you compare it to a book. First off we have the time limitations. In printing, you have the space you need to explain something. In film, the minutes have to be reduced, since we can hardly expect the public to remain entertained for over 24 hours for one movie. The eternal conflict (which is usually resolved with the comment “I like the books better”) is thus a needles one. When Peter Jackson started the project, I was very clear that the plot of both mediums would only be similar, thus not the same. In my personal opinion, the movies are extremely well done and maybe the only point I really criticise is the treatment of Faramir and his relationship with the Ring.

While reading the letters of Tolkien, though, I found a very interesting note on how the author corrected the screenplay of a previous, animated version that was planned during his lifetime. The criticism of the adaptation was quite fierce. Then I came to think: “What would Tolkien have thought of the newer adaptation?” I know the answer may be not a sure one, but from what I read in this letter, I found some interesting hints on the way he visualized his book being brought to film.

A clarification is needed though. Even as I read the letter, I was not sure if he really understood the medium. His comment “the cannons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different” (letter 210) does show to me that he was not able to see that seeing the story was totally different from reading it. I can not be totally sure about it, since such a view is debatable, but then again I have the feeling that he was not very sure, as a great literate person, on how he could make a movie attractive enough for a public.

On the question of his liking of the movie, I think he would have squirmed a bit when seeing Jackson’s screenplay. I will base this mainly on three facts that we can see on the movies:

Aragorn in Weathertop. During the rather long criticism of the screenplay, Tolkien focuses specially on the scene of Weathertop, initiating his first complaint with: “Strider does not ‘Whip out a sword’ in this book. Naturally not: his sword was broken.” This may seem like a minor complaint to many, but the idea of the re-forging the sword to start the Journey of Becoming a King was a quite clear way for the author to mark the first changes of the Third Age to the Fourth one.
In the movie the sequence is changed. Here we find that Andruil is but reforged until the moment he is going to enter the Path of the Dead, in the place he stops doubting himself and starts finally his ascension to the throne of Gondor. Thus we have two different periods of rise for Aragorn.
For Tolkien though, Weathertop was never a fight. This scene was meant to be brooding, with a terrible consequence to the group of hobbits. Simply said “The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness […]. There is no fight.” This leads us to the next point;

“[…] showing a preference for fights”. Here Jackson would draw most of the fault in Tolkien’s eyes. How many battles do we have in the movies? There is one (necessary for me) representing the last alliance, albeit short, one against Wargs (which, in my eyes, seems a bit unnecessary, but tries to increase the drama of a ‘lost’ character), multiple warscenes in Osgiliath, plus two big battles that appear in the book. For the author, though, it was much more a matter of ambience. He even claims in the letter that, if a battle had to be eliminated, it would have to be the Hornburg, since “there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar; the big one [Pelennor Fields] would gain by having no competitor.”
Would the three movies have been more interesting by eliminating the fights? We have to consider that the movies were made in Hollywood-style, which means the spectacular had to prevail. Many changes were made to adapt the films into this format. As a counter example we have the first Hobbit movie, in which the character development has had a heavy influence. Although a nice touch, it seems like it made the movie even more boring to the general public, which poses a problem for me. How many fights more will the next Hobbit movies need to remain as interesting as The Lord of the Rings did? I am not sure if Tolkien’s idea would have worked, but his argument makes sense… if you think it as a book.

Finally we have Saruman’s death, which was not represented at all in the normal movies but had a strange turn in the extended ones. Here Tolkien states that “Z[immerman] has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman’s proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die.” This one may be a little bit more difficult to work with, since the last scene, the rebellion in the Shire, seems like quite an extension for the movies and I can see why it was not included. Also, I have to point out that his death in the extended editions was not quite satisfactory and even too spectacular. First, Legolas got a new thing to brag about and second, the whole idea of the wheel seemed quite unnecessary. Who knows how Tolkien would have taken this business, but I suspect he would have had none of it.

All the points I mentioned do not make the movie bad. It is just a little thought experiment on what the original author might have disliked if he had ever been faced with this. In general the director made a very good interpretation, even though he never maintained the proper dialogues to the proper situations and characters (as he mentioned he wanted in the letter). Still, telling a story as huge as The Lord of the Rings in less than twelve hours was a challenge and, for the most part, well done.

Tolkien himself would have criticised it. But then again, he was a person who loved books, language and writing, making him not so prepared to understand movies as a whole and the way they should tell a story. Also, the new CGI and other effects we can now put into a movie has made the experience of seeing fantasy stories much easier than over 50 years ago. I thus would prefer people to separate the movie from the books. The story, although similar, is totally different. If one wants the complete experience, he would have to read the book, but who reads as much today as we did in the past?

If there is one criticism against Tolkien that is not fair, then it is his position towards women. Often enough the author has been accused of being a macho, specially because of the lack of active women in the books. The movies, on the other hand, tried to avoid any problems with their feminine public. But the role that is given to Arwen in the movies is something that irks me greatly.

Let’s thus analyze a bit the role of women in Tolkien’s epic, so we understand the position of our heroines. Arwen, for example, the most un-mentioned character ever, and at the same time less involved than some others. Thus it would appear on first sight that she is just there to knit Aragorn’s banner and then be the ever-obedient wife. Only once she talks during the novel (at the end), and this only to give up her passage to the Undying Lands. For those who read the appendices may see more of her, but not much to change the general impression.
The first objection I have to make here is the fact that most readers forget here the setting of the book. It is a medieval world after all,and women are not bound to go out very much on adventure, thus limiting their role in a society that is,at its base, male-oriented.

The three ladies of the movie.

But even then, and that is the second objection, there are some other female characters that are much more important. For instance, there is Eowyn, shieldmaiden of Rohan, who not only defies her uncle’s will to be part of battle, but also manages to kill a Ringwraith (as a matter of fact, THE Ringwraith that is the most powerful). Some might argument that her turning after the battle into a healer is a return to her womanly role, but what does this make Faramir, who after the books turns quite literally into a gardener, as a healer of the land of Ithilien,ravaged by the forces of Mordor? I don’t think he becomes less a man because of him taking a similar career as his wife.
There are many more examples! Take Galadriel, not only the most powerful Elf next to Glorfindel and Elrond, but also with even more dialog and action than his husband. After all, the Ring tempted her,not Celeborn. For those who also read the Silmarillion, they will recognize Lúthien, who multiple times rescues her lover from Sauron himself! As far as I can see,the female characters in Tolkien tend to show an even greater strength than their male counterparts, even though they may be scarce in appearance.
How does this compare to the films? Well, there we don’t get to know the Silmarillion women, but still have a strong appearance by Galadriel and Eowyn. Both were pretty well represented in the movies, and I strongly believe they themselves made a good case about the situation of the women of Middle-Earth. Thus, for me, the inclusion of this warrior Arwen was unnecessary. I know they tried to connect to the feminine audience with her participation, but at the same time they created a weak Arwen. How so? She doubts Aragorn. The patience of Arwen in itself was a great proclamation of strength and love. She was a character with a lot to lose, since if Aragorn had failed in his quest, she would have died in vain in Middle-Earth. The easy solution for her was to leave to the Undying Lands, but in the books she stayed. Second,she did not return because of an unborn child, which, in my opinion, made her role as a subservient woman even stronger in the films. Now it turns out that all she wanted was to get pregnant? I understand that the child was the prospect of the new future, but the fact that she initially flinched unnerves me.Besides, there are two other women to look up to. Galadriel and Eowyn show other sides of feminism. Arwen chose in the books her face of being a woman to be less obvious, but she definitely represents loyalty and trust not only in the lover and King, but in the future of the world. Even at the cost of her own immortality. Isn’t that a stronger character? On the other hand, we also can observe that today, the choice of a good, home staying wife is not very well looked at, at least in urban circles. I somehow find that a little disappointing, since we have forgotten the nurturing side of our society. The depiction of Arwen in the movies clearly shows that the latter role of the woman is being forgotten, maybe even demonized. I know some cases of women that harshly condemn another woman for wanting t0 raise children and stay at home. But as Lois Griffin once said in a memorable Family Guy episode:

Look, I’m all for equality but if you ask me, feminism is about choice. I choose to be a wife and mother. And now I’m choosing to end this conversation.

Welcome to the first post on the comparison of The Lord of the Rings movies versus the books. Before entering the real discussion, the inevitable disclaimer: This is NOT a “I hate the movies” kind of discussion, this is a more ample discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of both medias. The fact is, movies are more visual and books appeal to the imagination. These limitations though, can be the greater benefits of each one. This is exactly what I want to convey in this analysis.

First I will address maybe one of the biggest questions I have received of new Tolkien readers and some comments of old fans: why is Tom Bombadil not in the movies? This charming character of the books has found a way to dig deep into the hearts of many readers and has been somewhat sorely missed in the movies. Apart of the typical excuse (“imagine how long the movies would take if they included him”), I think there is a bigger, second reason for not including this popular wanderer.

Althoug most of you could imagine the physical appearance of Tom, I very much doubt you would have liked the representation. He is a merry being, hopping all the time, bursting into song every minute. He is cheerful and powerful and it seems like he is far away from the dangers of the Ring and the Wraiths behind them. Now remember the tone of the movie: dark and somber, with casual jokes that make (mostly) Merry and Pippin look ridicolous. The detour in the story would have distracted the watcher from the happenings. That is what happens in the book, but somehow in feels like it is woven together so thightly. But remember: the adventure with Tom takes three chapters, and to make the character credible in the movies, it would have taken at least half an hour to make him more or less consistent. And then there is the scene in the Barrows.

This scene for many is not so important, but this is actually the first time Frodo is in actual danger and in actual temptation of putting on the Ring. The riders were tempting him before, but never was he in threat of dying. As a sacrifice he was in mortal peril. The scene is important in the book because it puts the bearer in the position of a choice: abandoning his friends with the power in his hands or singing that song Bombadil taught them a few hours ago. The result is thus the first real victory over the Ring. But in the movies it was not that important. The Nazgûl already seems very dangerous: insects crawl away, their horses are all mistreated and oily. The danger is already clear and easy to see. In the books they are still diminished compared to what they would become in later books, since they are far away from their territory and they can not reveal themselves. But elves still roam in this land, of which they surely are afraid, as witnessed in the part with Gildor.

Thus, including Tom Bombadil would have been unnecessary, since we can not think the character without the barrow-wights. They correspond to each other as part of setting the scene and the danger (and the resistance of hobbits) of the One Ring. He would even have looked ridiculous the way he danced all the time, making the ambience questionable.

For me, him not being in the movies was an excellent choice. I loved the magic that flows in his description and his interesting wordplays, all which require a quite active use of the imagination of oneself. Thus the character remains as of now mystified and incomprehensible to us, making us wonder about his nature even today. After all, it is not only the reader, but also Frodo, that will repeatedly ask: “Who are you?”

He just is.

May they smile upon your way!

Posts navigation

Welcome to a blog of gaming, movies, books and some history. In here I explore the stories that have carried us over decades, yes, even centuries, to what defines us today. I hope you enjoy it and comment, I am always open to respond!
This blog is updated whenever possible, once a week.